In fact, pretty much all of the top 10 Android phones cost more $400...
Top 10.... where?
Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.
Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.
That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220
Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?
Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.
No, there is not! Since many around here are shareholders I think you've heard of Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for NinjaTrader? eSignal? Multicharts? Sierra Charts? If you are trading you are stuck with programs that run under Java. This is one reason why I never bought a Mac. It doesn't have the software that I need.
If proTA is Java they did some heavy skinning. I code in Java and it doesn't have that look and I do custom UIs. Java applications can work very well on the mac.
It's true that the Mac has fewer options than the PC but often the few that do exist tend to be geared toward a better UX.
/shrug
You can run Tradestation under Parallels or Fusion. That you never bought a mac for such a trivial reason if you prefer the os is silly. Personally I find Win7 just fine but prefer os x.
So the Mac vs. PC thing wasn't working... so let's shift the argument.
Look back at my original argument. We're talking mostly about the Asian market. No matter who is making profit... if you ended up with a 95% Android (devoid of Google's crap) vs. 5% Apple, then, just like old days, there is a damn good chance that developers would feel "compelled" to market Android apps first, regardless if their profit margins were higher for the Mac.
As I said, there has to be an answer for the cheap smartphone or, yes, this could end up being Apple in 1992.
This whole business that market share doesn't matter is bullshit in my opinion. If you lose enough of it then your company gets smaller. You may or not retain profit but that is also up for debate.
The answer doesn't have to be another smartphone. Yes, Steve answered the Mac question first with the iMac, but then he branched out with the iPod, iPhone and then iPad.
Using your theory, Steve would have just stuck with Macs. Profitable. Maybe. ... but how big would Apple be today?
Sorry to "shift" the argument but I was still referring to your comment about developers eventually preferring Android. I'm just not seeing that.
Since you mentioned the Asian markets... how many of those phones can even run all of the latest apps and games?
The problem Android developers are already having is a lot of that Android market share is made up of less-than-capable phones.... or people who don't use apps at all. And that number will increase for sure... which means more phones that won't run all the latest apps.
Android market share is already 3.5 times higher than the iPhone... yet the iPhone is still plucking along.
Don't forget... Apple is still increasing its installed base... even if their "share" of the market is decreasing (because the market itself is increasing at a rapid pace)
Plus... it's not like the bell rings and the game is over at some point. Both platforms will go on.
What I am saying is that Apple today could be at the point that Apple was at in 1988. Apple was doing well. Sculley had improved Apple's position considerably but he had absolutely no answer to Windows and the cheap PC. Without Steve's vision, or any vision whatsoever, Apple started treating Macs like soft drinks. Apple tried hard to come back but only began to flounder badly under 2 successive CEOs.
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.
The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim. Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).
What new products?
LaserWriter (1985)
PowerBooks (1991)
Newton (1993)
Under Spindler (93-96)
PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.
Ideas are cheap really. Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
He's no Steve Jobs (who is) but since he's taken over the CEO position Google does seem more focused, and design has certainly been pushed to the forefront.
I imagine he was emphasizing Apple because many posters on this site automatically assume Google is selling out users to either the government or other corporations while assuming that Apple protects its users at all costs. He was showing you that your beliefs are at least partially incorrect.
Google's posted another blog entry in connection with their Transparency Reports concerning governments requests for user data, this time explaining the why's and what-fors. Intereresting read.
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.
The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim. Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).
What new products?
LaserWriter (1985)
PowerBooks (1991)
Newton (1993)
Under Spindler (93-96)
PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.
Ideas are cheap really. Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.
By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either.
Someone is wrong somewhere. Some other company just estimated that Apple's worldwide iPhone marketshare ended the last quarter at 25.1%, an increase of 1.9% over the same quarter YOY. So who is right?
The iPhone is a Rolex in a sea of Timex's. The analysts are used to a different business model than Apple. They want Apple to be like GM and be the largest auto manufacture (Toyota since regained this mantle) and sell cheap crap to everyone. Or like Coke, or Walmart, or McDonald's, or Microsoft, or Google, or, HP, or Dell, RIM, Nokia, or Proctor and Gamble and and sell cheap crap to everyone.
Nokia's 920 is not crap. The operating system is what you might people call crap.
Keep in mind that Strategy Analytics is one of those companies that calls almost anything with a keypad a 'smartphone'. They 70/20 split is not even close to representative of Apple's position in smart phones. By most accounts, it's a lot more even when you don't count the phones that are nothing more than glorified feature phones.
I appreciate your sentiment but don't get your knickers in a twist!
Strategy Analytics is simply doing the same as all the other research companies (Gartner, IDC, Canalys). Although there are minor differences in their methods and results they give us a pretty good idea of what's happening in the market. Where else are you going to get your figures?
Loosely, the definition of 'smartphone' ( by the analyst houses) has been a phone that can accept 3rd party applications.
There have always been low end smartphones. Nokia used to sell tens of millions of them. Just because some people are buying low end Android phones... but not using them as smartphones... doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as ... smartphones.
With all that said.... I agree, that for Apple the more interesting metric is now the percentage of all cell phones sold. Remember Steve Job's 2008 'target' for the iPhone? 10% of the smartphone market, 1% of the whole phone market. Well, according to Strategy Analytics iPhone hit 8.4% of the phone market. And for Q4 the figure was 10.4%. That's the first time that iPhone has crossed 10%. It adds a little perspective to all the doom & gloom merchants out there.
PS. The poster you were responding too... doesn't know what he is talking about.
Well, I for one don't want to find out if there is a tipping point where the proliferation of Android devices increases to the point where it compels developers to build for Android first
We are closing on this tipping point, in 2012 iOS was still the lead mobile development platform at around 48% and 44% for Android, but that should change this year, with all the consequences over the software ecosystem and platform attractiveness on the middle and long term, a la mac vs windows redux.
The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.
Perhaps. I still remember some great software on the mac in the 90s.
In any case, the installed base of iOS is measured in the hundreds of millions. Something not true of the Mac in the 90s. By the time iOS is at saturation it wont be low hundreds of millions but high hundreds of millions and to the most lucrative demographic segment.
Quote:
By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either.
Steve was always a charismatic visionary. See the 1984 Mac keynote. Larry is 39. Steve was 29.
You don't have to have charisma to be an innovator and/or a visionary.
Just a reminder... Page was only 25 when he founded Google with Brin. I really wouldn't call him a slouch.
Another reminder... Steve's original vision was Lisa... not the Mac.
Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team. He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.
I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline. While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience. The Lisa was designed for business use. Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance. There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.
As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch. Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar. Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years. Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.
Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team. He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.
I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline. While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience. The Lisa was designed for business use. Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance. There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.
As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch. Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar. Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years. Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.
You had best do some research. The Mac was well advanced before Steve came along. Jef Raskin was the lead on the Mac and was the one who first went to Xerox Parc.
You might also want to research why Mike Scott didn't want Steve heading the Lisa team.
Steve had some vision during that time but nothing in comparison to what you are endowing upon him.
... and I wasn't comparing Page to Jobs and anybody that says that Page is a slouch has absolutely no credibility.
Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.
Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.
That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220
Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?
Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.
You do know that most of the "Android" phones sold in china are not Google Certified and do not use the Google apps. As a result most of the phones sold in china do not get reported to Google as activations.
Comments
Top 10.... where?
Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.
Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.
That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220
Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?
Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
No, there is not! Since many around here are shareholders I think you've heard of Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for NinjaTrader? eSignal? Multicharts? Sierra Charts? If you are trading you are stuck with programs that run under Java. This is one reason why I never bought a Mac. It doesn't have the software that I need.
If proTA is Java they did some heavy skinning. I code in Java and it doesn't have that look and I do custom UIs. Java applications can work very well on the mac.
It's true that the Mac has fewer options than the PC but often the few that do exist tend to be geared toward a better UX.
/shrug
You can run Tradestation under Parallels or Fusion. That you never bought a mac for such a trivial reason if you prefer the os is silly. Personally I find Win7 just fine but prefer os x.
Sorry to "shift" the argument but I was still referring to your comment about developers eventually preferring Android. I'm just not seeing that.
Since you mentioned the Asian markets... how many of those phones can even run all of the latest apps and games?
The problem Android developers are already having is a lot of that Android market share is made up of less-than-capable phones.... or people who don't use apps at all. And that number will increase for sure... which means more phones that won't run all the latest apps.
Android market share is already 3.5 times higher than the iPhone... yet the iPhone is still plucking along.
Don't forget... Apple is still increasing its installed base... even if their "share" of the market is decreasing (because the market itself is increasing at a rapid pace)
Plus... it's not like the bell rings and the game is over at some point. Both platforms will go on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
You are not getting it.
What I am saying is that Apple today could be at the point that Apple was at in 1988. Apple was doing well. Sculley had improved Apple's position considerably but he had absolutely no answer to Windows and the cheap PC. Without Steve's vision, or any vision whatsoever, Apple started treating Macs like soft drinks. Apple tried hard to come back but only began to flounder badly under 2 successive CEOs.
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.
The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim. Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).
What new products?
LaserWriter (1985)
PowerBooks (1991)
Newton (1993)
Under Spindler (93-96)
PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.
Ideas are cheap really. Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
He's no Steve Jobs (who is) but since he's taken over the CEO position Google does seem more focused, and design has certainly been pushed to the forefront.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I imagine he was emphasizing Apple because many posters on this site automatically assume Google is selling out users to either the government or other corporations while assuming that Apple protects its users at all costs. He was showing you that your beliefs are at least partially incorrect.
Google's posted another blog entry in connection with their Transparency Reports concerning governments requests for user data, this time explaining the why's and what-fors. Intereresting read.
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.
The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim. Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).
What new products?
LaserWriter (1985)
PowerBooks (1991)
Newton (1993)
Under Spindler (93-96)
PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.
Ideas are cheap really. Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.
Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future? Larry Page?
The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.
By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either.
Maybe Forstall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Someone is wrong somewhere. Some other company just estimated that Apple's worldwide iPhone marketshare ended the last quarter at 25.1%, an increase of 1.9% over the same quarter YOY. So who is right?
That would have been IDC.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155634/apples-iphone-grew-to-25-1-global-market-share-in-2012
I pointed out they had made an error.
post #23
But most people seem to just prefer headlines to .... facts.
IDC have since corrected and updated their full year's figures.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQbeTo7OYqY
iPhone 21.8% for Q4. 19.1% for the full year.
Quote:
"Combined together,..."
Let us hope Mr. Bicheno is a better analyst than linguist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
The iPhone is a Rolex in a sea of Timex's. The analysts are used to a different business model than Apple. They want Apple to be like GM and be the largest auto manufacture (Toyota since regained this mantle) and sell cheap crap to everyone. Or like Coke, or Walmart, or McDonald's, or Microsoft, or Google, or, HP, or Dell, RIM, Nokia, or Proctor and Gamble and and sell cheap crap to everyone.
Nokia's 920 is not crap. The operating system is what you might people call crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Keep in mind that Strategy Analytics is one of those companies that calls almost anything with a keypad a 'smartphone'. They 70/20 split is not even close to representative of Apple's position in smart phones. By most accounts, it's a lot more even when you don't count the phones that are nothing more than glorified feature phones.
I appreciate your sentiment but don't get your knickers in a twist!
Strategy Analytics is simply doing the same as all the other research companies (Gartner, IDC, Canalys). Although there are minor differences in their methods and results they give us a pretty good idea of what's happening in the market. Where else are you going to get your figures?
Loosely, the definition of 'smartphone' ( by the analyst houses) has been a phone that can accept 3rd party applications.
There have always been low end smartphones. Nokia used to sell tens of millions of them. Just because some people are buying low end Android phones... but not using them as smartphones... doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as ... smartphones.
With all that said.... I agree, that for Apple the more interesting metric is now the percentage of all cell phones sold. Remember Steve Job's 2008 'target' for the iPhone? 10% of the smartphone market, 1% of the whole phone market. Well, according to Strategy Analytics iPhone hit 8.4% of the phone market. And for Q4 the figure was 10.4%. That's the first time that iPhone has crossed 10%. It adds a little perspective to all the doom & gloom merchants out there.
PS. The poster you were responding too... doesn't know what he is talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewGavin
Nokia's 920 is not crap. The operating system is what you might people call crap.
Good point. Got it, thx!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
I wonder how many of this 70% would rather have an iPhone if they only could?
Seems to me a hughe potential for Apple to grow beyond the wildest expectations.
Probably far less then you suspect.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.
Perhaps. I still remember some great software on the mac in the 90s.
In any case, the installed base of iOS is measured in the hundreds of millions. Something not true of the Mac in the 90s. By the time iOS is at saturation it wont be low hundreds of millions but high hundreds of millions and to the most lucrative demographic segment.
Quote:
By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either.
Steve was always a charismatic visionary. See the 1984 Mac keynote. Larry is 39. Steve was 29.
http://www.businessinsider.com/video-steve-jobs-introduces-mac-2011-8
Steve was always Steve. He got better with age and wisdom but he was able to be amazing because at the core his drive for perfection changed little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Steve was always a charismatic visionary. See the 1984 Mac keynote. Larry is 39. Steve was 29.
http://www.businessinsider.com/video-steve-jobs-introduces-mac-2011-8
Steve was always Steve. He got better with age and wisdom but he was able to be amazing because at the core his drive for perfection changed little.
You don't have to have charisma to be an innovator and/or a visionary.
Just a reminder... Page was only 25 when he founded Google with Brin. I really wouldn't call him a slouch.
Another reminder... Steve's original vision was Lisa... not the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
You don't have to have charisma to be an innovator and/or a visionary.
Just a reminder... Page was only 25 when he founded Google with Brin. I really wouldn't call him a slouch.
Another reminder... Steve's original vision was Lisa... not the Mac.
Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team. He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.
I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline. While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience. The Lisa was designed for business use. Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance. There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.
As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch. Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar. Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years. Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team. He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.
I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline. While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience. The Lisa was designed for business use. Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance. There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.
As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch. Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar. Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years. Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.
You had best do some research. The Mac was well advanced before Steve came along. Jef Raskin was the lead on the Mac and was the one who first went to Xerox Parc.
You might also want to research why Mike Scott didn't want Steve heading the Lisa team.
Steve had some vision during that time but nothing in comparison to what you are endowing upon him.
... and I wasn't comparing Page to Jobs and anybody that says that Page is a slouch has absolutely no credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Top 10.... where?
Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.
Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.
That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220
Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?
Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.
You do know that most of the "Android" phones sold in china are not Google Certified and do not use the Google apps. As a result most of the phones sold in china do not get reported to Google as activations.